Prices For Common Cardiovascular Drugs In The US Are Not Consistently Aligned With Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care reimbursement agencies in countries other than the US often rely on cost-effectiveness evidence for drug coverage decisions, signaling to drug manufacturers their expectations for value-based pricing. To see whether drug prices in the US are influenced by value, we estimated the range of cost-effectiveness for thirty frequently prescribed cardiovascular drugs. We extrapolated evidence from randomized controlled trials to determine average lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and payer-related costs and to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), the principal metric of cost-effectiveness studies. Across the thirty drugs, the ICERs ranged from cost-saving with increased QALYs to more costly with decreased QALYs. This range suggests that drug pricing is not consistently influenced by value, or that such influence is masked by inaccessible factors, such as price discounts. Our findings highlight the need to debate how to define and use value-based evidence to inform US coverage and reimbursement decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".